Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the May 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Maestro Monologue: Discover your Genius, Defeat your intruder, Design your destiny by Rob White

There is no coal of character so dead that it won’t glow and flame if but slightly turned

-Neville Goddard-


Coal may appear as totally dead, but when slightly turned it may show its still glowing side, and when it catches oxygen it will burn again. Neville Goddard compares this with human character and character qualities. As per him anyone can be turned into a good or better one if correct interventions are applied.

But is this fully applicable to anyone at any point? There are some coal that are totally dead which cannot be lit by turning to any side. Similarly, I think there are people who cannot be salvaged or reluctant to any change. At the same time there are things like personalities and personality disorders. Up to what extent Neville Goddard is correct in context of all these?

[JackDaydream]

This topic is about the May 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Maestro Monologue: Discover your Genius, Defeat your intruder, Design your destiny by Rob White

There is no coal of character so dead that it won’t glow and flame if but slightly turned

-Neville Goddard-


Coal may appear as totally dead, but when slightly turned it may show its still glowing side, and when it catches oxygen it will burn again. Neville Goddard compares this with human character and character qualities. As per him anyone can be turned into a good or better one if correct interventions are applied.

But is this fully applicable to anyone at any point? There are some coal that are totally dead which cannot be lit by turning to any side. Similarly, I think there are people who cannot be salvaged or reluctant to any change. At the same time there are things like personalities and personality disorders. Up to what extent Neville Goddard is correct in context of all these?

Part of the issue about changing another is whether a person wishes to change. Even with people who wish to change it is not simple.

With the people who don't wish to change it also depends on what it is that needs to be altered. In the past, there were attempts to alter aspects such as sexual orientation, often through behaviour modification. That had a lot of negative effects and, now is not really used. Change is often about therapy, in particular for those diagnosed with personality disorders, especially antisocial personality, which is the diagnosis often given to some people who commit violent crimes. There may be a certain amount who are wishing to change but it depends on the underlying features, especially whether there is basic regard for others.

In those who wish to change, fixed behaviour patterns may be a problem. For example, a person who drinks too much alcohol may wish to stop but be lacking in ability to alter this, especially if drinking is an established repertoire and basic coping mechanism. Addictions are one aspect which people may seek to change but they may wish to change many others, like the basic tendency towards depression and associated negativity. But, it is not easy because these go deep, going back to childhood and the combination of nature and nurture.

Based on the idea of changing a person because there is an 'official' psychiatric recognition that there is a need to change and individuals own wish to change, I would argue that Goddard's comparison with coal is rather restive. Coal lacks reflective consciousness and is physical matter. The idea of changing coal is meant to be a kind of metaphor perhaps, but it may not be a particularly good one because the coal is purely physical. Changing minds may be a lot more complicated because the mind goes much deeper, even by those who see behaviour as programmed.

[stevie]

Coal may appear as totally dead, but when slightly turned it may show its still glowing side, and when it catches oxygen it will burn again. Neville Goddard compares this with human character and character qualities. As per him anyone can be turned into a good or better one if correct interventions are applied.

But is this fully applicable to anyone at any point?

Neuroplasticity, also known as neural plasticity, or brain plasticity, is the ability of neural networks in the brain to change through growth and reorganization. It is when the brain is rewired to function in some way that differs from how it previously functioned.[1] These changes range from individual neuron pathways making new connections, to systematic adjustments like cortical remapping. Examples of neuroplasticity include circuit and network changes that result from learning a new ability, environmental influences, practice, and psychological stress.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Neuroplasticity was once thought by neuroscientists to manifest only during childhood,[8][9] but research in the latter half of the 20th century showed that many aspects of the brain can be altered (or are "plastic") even through adulthood.[10][11] However, the developing brain exhibits a higher degree of plasticity than the adult brain.[12] Activity-dependent plasticity can have significant implications for healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage.[13][14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

[Sushan]

This topic is about the May 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Maestro Monologue: Discover your Genius, Defeat your intruder, Design your destiny by Rob White

There is no coal of character so dead that it won’t glow and flame if but slightly turned

-Neville Goddard-


Coal may appear as totally dead, but when slightly turned it may show its still glowing side, and when it catches oxygen it will burn again. Neville Goddard compares this with human character and character qualities. As per him anyone can be turned into a good or better one if correct interventions are applied.

But is this fully applicable to anyone at any point? There are some coal that are totally dead which cannot be lit by turning to any side. Similarly, I think there are people who cannot be salvaged or reluctant to any change. At the same time there are things like personalities and personality disorders. Up to what extent Neville Goddard is correct in context of all these?

Part of the issue about changing another is whether a person wishes to change. Even with people who wish to change it is not simple.

With the people who don't wish to change it also depends on what it is that needs to be altered. In the past, there were attempts to alter aspects such as sexual orientation, often through behaviour modification. That had a lot of negative effects and, now is not really used. Change is often about therapy, in particular for those diagnosed with personality disorders, especially antisocial personality, which is the diagnosis often given to some people who commit violent crimes. There may be a certain amount who are wishing to change but it depends on the underlying features, especially whether there is basic regard for others.

In those who wish to change, fixed behaviour patterns may be a problem. For example, a person who drinks too much alcohol may wish to stop but be lacking in ability to alter this, especially if drinking is an established repertoire and basic coping mechanism. Addictions are one aspect which people may seek to change but they may wish to change many others, like the basic tendency towards depression and associated negativity. But, it is not easy because these go deep, going back to childhood and the combination of nature and nurture.

Based on the idea of changing a person because there is an 'official' psychiatric recognition that there is a need to change and individuals own wish to change, I would argue that Goddard's comparison with coal is rather restive. Coal lacks reflective consciousness and is physical matter. The idea of changing coal is meant to be a kind of metaphor perhaps, but it may not be a particularly good one because the coal is purely physical. Changing minds may be a lot more complicated because the mind goes much deeper, even by those who see behaviour as programmed.

I agree with your thoughts on the used metaphor. Yes, human minds are much more complex than mere physical things.

We all have different personalities. Some are preferred by others and some are not. But people do not change their personalities just because of the social pressure. Some personalities are diagnosed as disorders because they are either too much annoying to others or harmful. Sadly many of such people end up with comorb psychiatric illnesses because it is quite difficult to change their personalities, just like a totally burned out coal.

And, yes, the personal factor of willingness to change also play a major role in this changing process. Understanding of having an issue with one's own self is the first step to change. This step is much necessary when addictions are addressed.

[Sushan]

Coal may appear as totally dead, but when slightly turned it may show its still glowing side, and when it catches oxygen it will burn again. Neville Goddard compares this with human character and character qualities. As per him anyone can be turned into a good or better one if correct interventions are applied.

But is this fully applicable to anyone at any point?

Neuroplasticity, also known as neural plasticity, or brain plasticity, is the ability of neural networks in the brain to change through growth and reorganization. It is when the brain is rewired to function in some way that differs from how it previously functioned.[1] These changes range from individual neuron pathways making new connections, to systematic adjustments like cortical remapping. Examples of neuroplasticity include circuit and network changes that result from learning a new ability, environmental influences, practice, and psychological stress.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Neuroplasticity was once thought by neuroscientists to manifest only during childhood,[8][9] but research in the latter half of the 20th century showed that many aspects of the brain can be altered (or are "plastic") even through adulthood.[10][11] However, the developing brain exhibits a higher degree of plasticity than the adult brain.[12] Activity-dependent plasticity can have significant implications for healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage.[13][14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

This is quite correct. Our brains are capable of learning new things, and sometimes it can totally change the initial programming of a certain area and reprogram it to perform duties of a non functioning part of the brain, like what can happen following a stroke. But this is not 100% guaranteed. Even in your quote it says that developing brain is the one that shows this ability at a good level. So when you become an adult there is a high chance for your brain to not change its programming, and that will simply make you a burned out coal which cannot be lit anymore.

[intentes_pupil]

[...] Up to what extent Neville Goddard is correct in context of all these?

The way I understand this metaphor, people have a chore. This might be composed out of chore believes, values and personality traits. As mentioned in one of the previous posts, our brain has the capability of learning, develop and rewire thanks to our Neurocortex. But! We still have a hard-wired part in ourselves that can be triggered given the proper stimuli.

From my point of view this is not necessarily true, given that it implies that there are "chore" believes, values and personality traits that cannot be changed. This

However, I would accept this argument - and therefore I think there is a context in which this is correct - if we stay within the biology domain. Meaning, those parts of the brain that are hard-wired to ourselves and control us in certain situations without being able (most of the time) to prevent it.
An example would be the amygdala, which given the proper stimuli (threat) will react and produce a physical response (pumping adrenaline in our body) that will be impossible for us to avoid.

From my point of view coal is our neurobiology.

[Sushan]

[...] Up to what extent Neville Goddard is correct in context of all these?

The way I understand this metaphor, people have a chore. This might be composed out of chore believes, values and personality traits. As mentioned in one of the previous posts, our brain has the capability of learning, develop and rewire thanks to our Neurocortex. But! We still have a hard-wired part in ourselves that can be triggered given the proper stimuli.

From my point of view this is not necessarily true, given that it implies that there are "chore" believes, values and personality traits that cannot be changed. This

However, I would accept this argument - and therefore I think there is a context in which this is correct - if we stay within the biology domain. Meaning, those parts of the brain that are hard-wired to ourselves and control us in certain situations without being able (most of the time) to prevent it.
An example would be the amygdala, which given the proper stimuli (threat) will react and produce a physical response (pumping adrenaline in our body) that will be impossible for us to avoid.

From my point of view coal is our neurobiology.

There are neuroanatomical parts that act like coal. I agree. Every part of it is not fired always, but does when the necessity or the stimuli comes. But do you imply that those chore beliefs are too a part of our neuroanatomy which cannot be changed? Or we have acquired such beliefs, and now we are reluctant to change them because they have been in our societies and minds for so long, aren't we?

[intentes_pupil]

[...]But do you imply that those chore beliefs are too a part of our neuroanatomy which cannot be changed? Or we have acquired such beliefs, and now we are reluctant to change them because they have been in our societies and minds for so long, aren't we?

No, I don't think that. I think the quote implies that and therefore I disagree with it.
As far as I know, the character is developed and can be changed. If it were engraved in our biology when we are born, we would not see any development or change of mind and that is not what we observe; the contrary is true, people change. Some traits might be strongly anchored (especially those related to trauma and childhood) but they are not necessarily unshakeable.

[Sushan]

[...]But do you imply that those chore beliefs are too a part of our neuroanatomy which cannot be changed? Or we have acquired such beliefs, and now we are reluctant to change them because they have been in our societies and minds for so long, aren't we?

No, I don't think that. I think the quote implies that and therefore I disagree with it.
As far as I know, the character is developed and can be changed. If it were engraved in our biology when we are born, we would not see any development or change of mind and that is not what we observe; the contrary is true, people change. Some traits might be strongly anchored (especially those related to trauma and childhood) but they are not necessarily unshakeable.

I agree with your perspective. The quote by Neville Goddard serves as a reminder that people can change and improve their character traits, but it's essential to recognize that this transformation may not apply to everyone or in every circumstance. Indeed, people can change and develop their character throughout their lives, but the process can be more difficult for some, especially if their personality traits are deeply ingrained or linked to past traumas.

It's also important to note that change often requires self-awareness, effort, and the right environment or support system. While some individuals may be more resistant to change or face greater challenges in transforming their character, it doesn't mean that change is entirely impossible. In many cases, the right interventions, guidance, and motivation can facilitate personal growth and development.